Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Isaac Luria, Director of Communications and New Media for J Street, discusses a primary J Street goal: changing what it means to be pro-Israel, why a one-state solution is really a one-state delusion, how Avigdor Lieberman undermines Israel’s status as a democracy and natural ally of the U.S., indications Bibi Netanyahu will concede part of E. Jerusalem and the short 6-12 month window of opportunity for serious Palestinian/Israeli negotiations.

Isaac Luria is Director of Communications and New Media for J Street. He previously worked for 4 years in online organizing and consulting, 2 years of which he spent at the online marketing firm Donordigital in San Francisco. Isaac received his Bachelors degree in American Studies from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. During 2007-2008, Isaac lived in Jerusalem, Israel as a Dorot Fellow. Isaac lives in Brooklyn with his wife, Sara, who is studying to become a Reform Rabbi.

————————-

Transcript – Scott Horton interviews Isaac Luria, July 31, 2010

Scott Horton: All right y’all, welcome back to the show. It’s Antiwar Radio. I’m Scott Horton. Our next guest is Isaac Luria from JStreet – the pro-peace Israel lobby in Washington D.C. How’s it going, Isaac?

Isaac Luria: Going great. Thanks for having me, Scott.

Horton: Well thanks very much for joining us today. Well, lots of stuff in the news in terms of Middle East policy and the Israel Lobby in the United States. I guess we could talk about Iran sanctions. We could talk about East Jerusalem. We could talk about Representative [Ileana] Ros-Lehtinen and her efforts to kick the Palestinian Authority out of the United States. What do you think? You pick.

Luria: Well let’s start with Ros-Lehtinen, because I think it’s an important indication of some of what JStreet’s been up to in the last little while. We are right now asking our hundred and fifty thousand supporters online to take action with us in opposing a letter that Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has been circulating-out for signatures. The letter actually calls to kick the Palestinian diplomatic representation that they have here in the United States out of the country.

And this is, I mean, it’s just a wild idea, one that is so far out of the mainstream when it comes to folks who really care about achieving a peace in the region that will secure Israel’s future, you know, the right thing to do by the Palestinians, and solve American, you know, help American interests in the region. You know, we are really pushing back on this letter. I think it is just a really difficult thing to see happen in Capitol Hill.

I can just imagine the Israelis and Palestinians are trying to come to direct talks now in the region. The U.S. is, you know, Mitchell, his team, Secretary Clinton, President Obama are doing what they can to get this train moving on the right track, and these sorts of firebombs get thrown from Congress, and it’s really unhelpful. And I hope that people will join us, come to our website JStreet.org and fight back against this fearmongering. Because we do need a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and stuff like this really sets that back.

Horton: Well you know, it seems like a lot of the pro-right wing, pro-Likud kind of argument in America is based around the idea that, “To give up the West Bank is to destroy Israel forever; they want us all just destroyed forever” and just completely conflating the ’48 borders with the ’67 ones, or even the ’45 borders with the ’67 ones. It seems like the whole argument takes place, maybe deliberately, detached from reality – “To believe in this, you just have to believe in it, and this is our line and we’re sticking to it.”

Luria: Right, and I think that’s exactly what JStreet was founded to change. There is this idea that being pro-Israel means marching in lockstep with a particular Israeli government policy. There are some things that Benjamin Netanyahu has done which I think is a good thing, but I think overall we have to be doing what we can to advance the peace process. It is so urgently needed, as a pro-Israel American, as a Zionist, I believe that this is the only way that Israel is ever going to be secure, and that means sharing the land with the Palestinians, finding the way to divide the biblical land of Israel into a state for the Palestinians and a state for the Israelis. And that is, for me, the fulfillment of the Zionist idea. If we believe that Jews should be able to determine their own fate in a country of their own, we also must believe that another people – the Palestinians – should be able to determine their own fate in a country of their own, as well. So that is my version of what it means to be pro-Israel, and that’s what JStreet’s trying to advance on Capitol Hill and with the administration.

Luria: [laughs] You know, I think it’s one of these issues that is just considered a third rail in American politics. I think we’re prying-open the space. We have to. There’s no other way to approach this issue than by mounting an aggressive political campaign to change hearts and minds on Capitol Hill and in the American Jewish community. So I think we’re having some success.

It is an incredibly difficult issue, a hot button issue, so we have a lot more to do to make that work. You know, every time – and I say this to staff, I say this to friends of mine and supporters of JStreet – that every time we are attacked by the “right” people – and I mean the folks on the other side of the aisle – when it comes to being pro-Israel – that they make us stronger, that they show that they do only want one way of being pro-Israel to be – “there’s only one way to be pro-Israel in the American Jewish community or on Capitol Hill.” So it proves our point. And we have the ability then to turn that into new supporters, into money for candidates that we support, and the like.

Horton: Right on. Yeah well, that’s certainly true. I mean, it has seemed for a long time as though there’s just the one line, but I think more and more people are understanding at least that there is an argument that the policies of the Israeli government and the policies of the pro-Israeli government forces in America are really bad for Israel over the long term if you want Israel to exist under the parameters as you just said.

Now me, I’m kind of a Declaration of Independence guy, and I don’t think race or religion matter, but then again that’s a kinda newfangled western-American kind of idea, and racial and ethnic division, religious division by border, is the symptom of the way the old word works, I guess. I wouldn’t try to insist on overthrowing all that, I guess, but then again it’s kinda funny – I saw Avigdor Lieberman – well you can characterize him however you want – but I guess it’s at least just fair to say – is a very right-wing nationalist and is the foreign minister there – of Israel. He was actually talking more like what I would think would be the idea – not that I would trust him to implement it my way or anything – but he was saying, “What we ought to have is just a one-state solution and equal rights for everyone,” and why should it be a division of Jewish versus Christian and Muslim for the land instead of just the Bill of Rights for everybody?

Luria: Well I think that is a, you know, just not where JStreet comes down. We believe that a two-state solution is the solution. I actually don’t believe that any sort of one-state scenario is going to lead to peace. I think it’s a sort of scenario that actually will end up with more violence. We will see – I call it a one-state delusion because I think that when people support it that what they’re actually going to result in – and I think that people come at this – they want to grapple with this issue, they’re trying to come up with the right answer – but I do think that it’s important to say that we would be consigning the region, especially the Israelis and Palestinians, to a 40-year, 50-year Kosovo-style low grade conflict that will claim many more lives and destabilize the region further.

And second, as a pro-Israel American, as somebody who believes that there needs to be a Jewish homeland, that Israel is that homeland, and we’ve got to secure it – and that means borders. And that means that the character of the state would be defined by its citizens which would be majority Jewish in the context of a two-state solution. So I understand the one-state movement, and you see it also popping up, as you said, you know from right-wing politicians in Israel – but I think that it is a mistake. I think that that’s the sort of rethinking of the last twenty years of policy that could get us down a very, very difficult and dangerous path, not just for Israel but for everybody in the region.

Horton: What do you think Lieberman is up to, trying to agree with me about something? Doesn’t seem right.

Luria: You know, I think that Lieberman is a character in Israeli politics that is very difficult to handle for many American Jews. What we see in Israel and what we believe is good about Israel is that it’s a democracy. It is representative of the values that we hold dear, that we share enemies in terrorism, that that setup of a values-based relationship – you know, a strategic relationship, as well, between the U.S. and Israel – but in particular a values-based relationship – that whole idea is called into question by people like Avigdor Lieberman who don’t have the same view of what it means to be in a democracy.

Horton: All right, I’m sorry, hold it right there, Isaac – we got to go out and take this break. Go look at JStreet.org, the pro-peace Israel lobby in D.C. We’ll be right back with Isaac Luria right after this.

[break]

Horton: All right, so we’re on the phone with Isaac Luria from JStreet. JStreet.org is the website, and when we were so rudely interrupted by the commercial break, Isaac, we were talking about Avigdor Lieberman – Israel’s Lieberman – and he’s the foreign minister there, and you were arguing that he’s so right wing and nationalist in his policies and proposals and ways of doing things that he’s delegitimizing the argument that Israel is a democracy and therefore a natural ally of the United States. And that is of concern to you guys at JStreet.

Luria: Yeah. I mean, I think that Avigdor Lieberman’s view of what Israel should be – will be – is not mine. He does not see the beauty, I don’t think, of the Declaration of Independence of Israel that pledged to respect and honor the rights of all people living within the borders of the state. So I think that this is just one of those issues in which JStreet just disagrees with the way that Avigdor Lieberman approaches what it means to have a state of Israel and a state with a Jewish majority, and I think that there is a key difference here.

And I am worried about the pull of politicians like him inside Israel and what that means for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. When Americans see a politician who really represents the antithesis of their values when it comes to democracy, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to rights of minorities, it just doesn’t sit well, and it should be rejected. And I think what we’re trying to do is really mount a – what I would call a last ditch effort to save Israel from the brink of losing its democratic nature. And that’s why we’re supporting President Obama’s push for a two-state solution. And this is, I think, just given the political calendar and given the trends in Palestinian and Israeli society, one of the last times that we’re really going to be able to push hard for a two-state solution and secure Israel’s future as a Jewish democratic home.

Horton: Well you know, I wonder how much all this – you know we are talking about Benjamin Netanyahu’s government here – and I’m sure you remember the “Clean Break” strategy that was written by the American neocons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. And what they said was, at least part of it was – and what he did – was disrupt, basically sabotage, the Oslo peace deal, and then they carried out the rest of it: getting America to invade Iraq, which was supposed to, get this, weaken Iran, which I think is hilarious. But I wonder whether you think it’s possible for Israel to ever have an about-face on this policy of, you know, the larger regional policy of, “We will just be stronger than everyone forever and dominate them, and they won’t dare try to oppose us forever” rather than trying to make friends with everybody? You know what I mean? America can only bribe Egypt to pretend not to hate Israel for so long; what if Mubarak died, you know?

Luria: Well I think that’s the question that’s on the table right now – whether or not Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to take this opportunity and really pursue it. There are some encouraging signs in the past few weeks. I know this sounds odd from a JStreet representative, but I think there have been real encouraging signs from Bibi Netanyahu recently.

He made a statement to a gathering of American Jewish leaders in New York on the issue of Jerusalem, which, as you probably know, is one of the key stumbling blocks when it comes to the peace process. What do we do about Jerusalem? How do we share it? Who gets the Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem? Who gets the Jewish neighborhoods in West Jerusalem, and what happens to the holy sites in the Old City? But on that issue the prime minister, when asked whether or not in the context of a two-state solution agreement, “would Jerusalem remain united,” which is a code-language for, “would Jerusalem remain under Israeli control entirely, including Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem” – which is a non-starter with the Palestinians and probably a non-starter with the two-state solution, as well. Assuredly a non-starter.

But he didn’t answer in the way that anybody had expected. He said, “Oh you know, of course there are Palestinian neighborhoods which might end up as part of East Jerusalem,” which is a very different answer than he’s ever given on Jerusalem – totally different; seems like a change. And then you watch to see if the Prime Minister’s bureau is going to deny it, and they didn’t. Usually those denials happen very quickly, and this one was not denied.

So my view is that the jury is still out. It’s not yet decided whether or not Bibi is the right man for the job. I think that he has an opportunity to make history, that he is going to need to understand that this is the last great window to do it – with President Obama in the White House, with Abbas and Fayyad in charge in the West Bank. So it remains to be seen. I am hoping. And JStreet will be pushing this Israeli government in ways that we can from America to take this opportunity and pursue it.

Horton: Well now I guess you imply there, when you say kind of, “last chance, last window of opportunity” kind of language there – then after this, then what? Israel will be doomed to a one-state solution, right? It seems like a major question is, “Can, or even will, the Israeli army, if ordered, remove settlers from the West Bank?” – which is already divided up into such tiny little pieces that you can’t make a state there without undoing the massive settlements that are crisscrossing the place.

Luria: And you’re right that many settlements will have to be evacuated in order to make this two-state solution work. The question of what happens next, I think, is a very difficult one. I think that things are going to move – there’s going to be a lot more drama before we have any sort of answer to that, but I’m focused on this goal which is: In the next six months, are we going to see progress? If we don’t see progress in the next six to twelve months, I think we’re in a very dangerous spiral.

So the key is the American government. Are they going to be able to have the political will behind their effort to make peace? And I think that that is also a question now that JStreet is faced with. And that’s what our role is, to create that political space so that President Obama will be able to do what’s necessary to bring the parties to the table, to propose compromised solutions, and to push, when necessary, to get both sides, Palestinians and Israelis, to agree to the two-state solution based along what they almost agreed to in the nineties and two-thousands.

Horton: All right now we’re very short on time here – that’s the bumper music all ready playing – so just really quickly kind of yes or no: Are we nearing the day when JStreet has as much authority on Capital Hill as AIPAC?

Luria: We are doing what we can to fight against all kinds of folks on the right. I wouldn’t put AIPAC as the only one; there are lots of them and we’re building.

Don't know what Luria is talking about when he sez anyone in the O admin is working for peace in the ME. Is he talking about the same O who gave Netanyahu the green light to bomb Iran when the latter visited the former recently? Is he talking about increasingly nutzoid Israelists Ros-Lehtinan? I see developments as a one-way street to disaster, in an accelerating vehicle.

Sir, I support J Street because they are "Pro Israel, Pro Peace". If there is no peace and the occupation continious, now in the 43rd year, Israel will no doubt become an apartheid state with less acceptance in the world and then Netanyahu's claim that he is supporting peace will be considered a lip service, as US UN diplomat S. Rice recently mentioned.

I was priviledged to hear Jeremy Ben Ami speak recently in Crested Butte, Colorado. He makes powerful points regarding the two state solution. I think J Street's main challenge is to sway the American public, particularly Jews, away from its knee jerk, irrational support of Israel in all cases. J street must continue to rebut Ros-Lehtinan, et al., and call Bibi to account for his insane remarks on how easily he can maipulate America, etc. The present course Israel is taking will draw America into another war which it can't win and which will finally bankrupt this country AND be the death of Israel itself. So, I guess it is J street or the dark alley.

This idea of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people has some undertones. How would it be if ethnic Italians called for an Italy for ethnic Italians or the Sioux Indians called for a North and South Dakota for Sioux Indians, with others as secondary participants? In general, the idea that we are on the earth to do for us and our own without widening the scope of who we consider to be fully human and deserving of full participation and rights in whatever civil context is ultimately self-defeating. Saying that America and Israel have a marriage of values is only correct in the most cynical sense. Democracy in its inclusive and fundamental sense contradicts Zionism, which is ethnic and tribal self-determination.

There's an ethnicity that ostensibly has its own state (and I don't know of any other), and that state does things like rocket the apartment buildings and buldoze the homes of a nearby ethnicity, and use chemical weapons (white phosphorous, …) on them. It has built a history such that it is hazardous to allow it to fail to increase –let alone reduce –Palestinian participation in it's government and military decision making. Would a Palestinian state improve the Palestinian situation, or simply minimize Palestinian influence on their abuser? If a 'solution' is even desired, only one seems inevitable, and only one will solve anything: cut Israel's funding, then stay out of it and let them talk as equals.

I feel he would fail the test of comprehending those strong links. He sounds he is only obsessed with his own tribe versus the fate of the humanity as a whole.

I wonder what he thinks about armed men/women going to a weak country, driving its people out of their homes using brutal force and establishing a new country. (claiming ‘god has given this land to us’, or ‘we were here 2000 years ago’)

God? Does Luria know a large number of scientists and free thinkers blame religion (especially monotheistic religions) for some of the grossest atrocities in our past. God in those religions is an amazing being. Richard Dawkins in his “God Delusion” shows:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

Does Luria know in detail how believing in that kind of god influences the tribal obsessions of the harshly victimized people? I doubt he knows enough.

That kind of god giving land to it chosen people? According a book that describes parting of the seas and many other unfathomable superstitions? I beg him to think about all that. Impartial analytical thinking makes us all better human beings..

And….the notion of “Israel has all the rights to defend itself” becomes nonsensical when we envision in a civilized court of justice a woman who has killed her abusive husband is acquitted.

Morally, rationally and legally Israel has lost all its rights the instant it committed the horrendous genocidal crime of ethnic cleansing the Palestinian lands.

Finally it seems the de-indoctrination of Israelis and establishment of a single state might be a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Alas human beings are not logical animals. That kind of future is not in the near horizons..at the moment the attendance of synagogues is ever increasing..

Then, if not, can we see the “total obliteration” of all living beings on the far horizons? I think with rapid exponential expansion of corruption, bribery, inhumanity, greedy attitudes, remorselessness and the concentration of power in the hands of few psychopathic warmongers that vision is not just a pessimistic imagination……the lunatics now have inexhaustible resources in their disposal….many of us worry…I believe rightfully so.

Dawkins doesn't know his history. Most atrocities over the last two centuries have been in the service of secular ideologies: social darwinism, nationalism, Marxism (which is anti-god, of course). Japanese polytheists killed 10s of millions in WW II.

Wars and atrocities are mostly about economics and the primate lust to dominate.

My beef is that your show has unfortunately been trotting out the same talking head apologists
for empire, masquerading as libertarian/left/anarcho-conservatives for about two years.

J-Street? C'mon Scott…the only thing separating these guys from AIPAC is a desire not to get blood splattered across their new loafers.

There's plenty of Jewish-Israeli dissenting voices out there. You don't have to base guest participation on your show on "mutual appreciation".
I like Margolis, Porter, Weiss…but it's getting to be an echo chamber.

If J Street wants to offer an alternative to the AIPAC and at the same time make a contribution to solving the I/P conflict it should begin with denouncing Zionism. If it does not do this it is wasting it's time. There is not way to persuade the Palestinians, or any other decent person, to accept a movement that bulldozes houses and steals land. Yet that is what Zionism advocates. The most recent version of Zionism – Religious settlors – is just a new verson of the old movement started by Theodore Hertzl. It advocates displacing the population of Palestine in favor of "Jews" as defined by the Zionists. Yet many, if not most, Jews object to the Zionist movement and do not accept it's premise, which is that Jews are a "people" or a "nation" for which the Zionists speak. So bottom line, people who bicker over one-state or two-state but still believe in the right of the "Jewish people", as deinfined by them, to a land of their own, are just not going to get anywhere. Anti-War should learn to distinguish between Zionists and anti-Zionists and not pretend that J-Street is any differnet from the AIPAC.

J-Street is nothing more than “AIPAC Lite.” J-Street is short on substance and doesn’t really wish to take any concrete actions to create 2 States. They simply stick to carefully worded talking points. J-Street helps provide a smoke screen to buy Israel more time to complete its theft of the entire West Bank. And, the brutal Israeli regime will continue to have near total control over the US for as long as the USA remains in existence.

I doubt it, he apparently shares with right-wingers a large block of ‘nationalist’ and ‘tribal’ nonsense that has been plaguing the humanity for so long.

I urge him to watch Carl Sagan’s great Youtube video entitled ‘The Pale Blue Dot”. I believe Sagan (except for a very short period before his death) was a great ‘unbiased Jewish’ Humanist and he deserved to be listened attentively. Watch the video…it is a magnificent, unforgettable thought provoking piece of poetic or scientific declamation ever recorded. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M )

Does Luria believe he is also chosen by god? Definitely some of his followers adhere to that absurd notion. As I’m writing this I question can Luria rationally correlate the events in WWII, the sources of tribalism, believing in god,, human calibers of self-righteousness, ruthlessness, remorselessness with recent history of Israel?